ArticleGland surgery2017
Evaluating the performance of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment referral criteria for breast cancer women in an Asian surgical breast clinic.
Article in Gland surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining the Need for Metastatic Staging in Patients with Bilateral Breast Cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE)-A study protocol on personalised risk-based breast cancer screening programme.PloS one · 2022Article
- National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, resources for genomic services vary. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment criteria for further genetic risk evaluation are useful, but lack specificity for reliably excluding patients with low a priori risk. This may result in patient overload in lesser-equipped genetics clinics. Since we use Manchester and the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk assessment models in our genetics clinic to determine whether genetic testing is warranted, we chose Manchester and BOADICEA as the reference standard to compare how the NCCN breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment criteria for further genetic risk evaluation performs against these two risk assessment models in referring breast cancer patients for genetic evaluation.
methodsBreast cancer patients diagnosed from 2009-2011 were assessed using the NCCN criteria, Manchester and BOADICEA. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to compare the NCCN criteria versus the Manchester and BOADICEA scoring systems in identifying high-risk patients.
resultsA total of 666 patients were included in the study. Percentages of high-risk patients resulting from Manchester and BOADICEA were 1.80% and 2.55%, respectively. Among the NCCN criteria, breast cancer and ≥1 close relatives with breast cancer at ≤50 years of age correlated best with Manchester and/or BOADICEA (c-statistic =0.831) with a false negative rate of 1.0%.
conclusionsBreast cancer at any age and ≥1 close relative with breast cancer at ≤50 years of age exhibited the highest correlation with Manchester and/or BOADICEA, promising greater specificity compared to the other NCCN criteria for segregating high risk, Asian breast cancer patients for referral to a genetics clinic, nevertheless recognizing the inherent limitations of the scoring systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.